Odd how you talk about anything in a "medical sense" and call marijuana a narcotic in the same sentence. It's a common misnomer, but marijuana is not a narcotic.
I know it's classified as a depressant and not a narcotic. And peanuts are legumes not nuts. Who cares though? Was it even worth trying to correct me on? It's trivial, almost as bad as correcting grammatical errors. It's common terminology for illegal drugs regardless of distinct categorization, so I'm not going to worry about it.
You're using a common fallacy to support your argument called the "
naturalistic fallacy." Just because it's not natural doesn't mean it's undesirable.
If you want to argue that it's bad for you, then fine; just don't argue that it's bad simply because it's not natural.
Do you even understand what my point was? I was making the literal distinction between hemp and pot, that being that one is a natural crop while the other is a manipulated and chemical-filled plant purposefully bread for drug use. If you want to argue about what I said then that is fine, but don't attack positions I don't have or assume I'm talking about something I'm not. I was differentiating two things for a significant reason- one should be legal in my eyes (hemp) and the other should not (pot). I was doing nothing else.
That's absurd. What's wrong with legalizing it and then taxing it? You didn't even answer that, you just said "it's bad because it's hypocritical," which isn't true nor relevant. If it were legal, it would be a luxury, and luxuries USUALLY get taxed highly for various reasons. And so what if it's harmful to people? This kind of nanny-state thinking makes me sick. People should be allowed to choose to do whatever stupid crap they want to do to themselves.
Again, you're a prime example of this thinking I'm against. You say you want to avoid a nanny state yet at the same time are advocated huge government involvement in the economy and individual's purse. That's the whole point. You're by default supporting a nanny state by supporting the levying of excessive taxes on legitimate products in a market economy. Again, it's hypocritical in my view. I believe in a laissez faire economy where the government taxes people and products as little as possible, restricting government profits solely for the legitimate, necessary, and proper roles of government enumerated under the Constitution. It's not the government's job to tax what is legitimate, luxury or not. What's wrong with taxing it? Exactly what's wrong with taxing everything else. If it's legitimate then there should be little involvement by the government, as little deterrence as possible, less regulations, less restrictions, and less confiscation of wealth. It's unnecessary and goes against the concept of economic liberty in my view.
Do you also support putting cameras in our houses so that the government can stop us from doing ANYTHING potentially harmful?
No, because that's tyrannical and potentially violates the Constitution and Bill of Rights, specifically the Fourth Amendment.
And let's keep "enforcing" the law the way we are: arresting about 1 in 1000 offenders and charging them a hefty fine, then letting them go with a criminal record that will prevent them from getting any good job the rest of their life. Sounds completely fair.
It's not the government's, the law's, or society's job to be "fair." In a republic like ours I expect things to be based on what is just, not what is fair. Why have laws at all if we're selective about when to enforce them? The law is the law. If a child rapist is forced to alert his community of his presence, can't live near an elementary school, and has a hard time finding a job, is that "fair?" If a drunk driver kills someone in a car crash and goes to jail a few year, is that "fair?" Fairness is subjective and means nothing. Justice should be our concern in a republican government founded on the rule of law and based on civic virtue. In a just society the criminal pays for his crimes. If your objection is the harshness of the penalties then write your local congressman or something, but until the penalties change the law must be strictly enforced and our sovereignty upheld.